Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 18 May 2021 10:23:13 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "hasegawa-hitomi@fujitsu.com" <hasegawa-hitomi@fujitsu.com>
Cc:     "'fweisbec@gmail.com'" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        "'tglx@linutronix.de'" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "'mingo@kernel.org'" <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "'juri.lelli@redhat.com'" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        "'vincent.guittot@linaro.org'" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        "'dietmar.eggemann@arm.com'" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        "'rostedt@goodmis.org'" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "'bsegall@google.com'" <bsegall@google.com>,
        "'mgorman@suse.de'" <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "'bristot@redhat.com'" <bristot@redhat.com>,
        "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Utime and stime are less when getrusage (RUSAGE_THREAD) is
 executed on a tickless CPU.
Message-ID: <YKN5cQpFSdsgBlBU@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <OSBPR01MB21837C8931D90AE55AF4A955EB529@OSBPR01MB2183.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <OSBPR01MB2183384B29F6291EB7C0BB81EB2C9@OSBPR01MB2183.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <OSBPR01MB2183384B29F6291EB7C0BB81EB2C9@OSBPR01MB2183.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 07:59:06AM +0000, hasegawa-hitomi@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Hi Ingo, Peter, Juri, and Vincent
> 
> 
> > I found that when I run getrusage(RUSAGE_THREAD) on a tickless CPU, the utime and stime I get are less than the actual time, unlike when I run getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF) on a single thread.
> > This problem seems to be caused by the fact that se.sum_exec_runtime is not updated just before getting the information from 'current'.
> > In the current implementation, task_cputime_adjusted() calls task_cputime() to get the 'current' utime and stime, then calls cputime_adjust() >to adjust the sum of utime and stime to be equal to cputime.sum_exec_runtime. On a tickless CPU, sum_exec_runtime is not updated >periodically, so there seems to be a discrepancy with the actual time.
> > Therefore, I think I should include a process to update se.sum_exec_runtime just before getting the information from 'current' (as in other >processes except RUSAGE_THREAD). I'm thinking of the following improvement.
> > 
> > @@ void getrusage(struct task_struct *p, int who, struct rusage *r)
> >         if (who == RUSAGE_THREAD) {
> > +               task_sched_runtime(current);
> >                 task_cputime_adjusted(current, &utime, &stime);
> > 
> > Is there any possible problem with this?
> 
> 
> Any comments?

Your email is malformed.